Jump to content
270soft Forum

How long do you give the United States to last as a country?


How long do you give the United States to last as a country?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

    • At least 500 years.
      13
    • About 300 years.
      7
    • About 100 more years.
      3
    • About 50 more years.
      3
    • About 25 more years.
      1
    • Maybe a decade.
      2
    • Not long - 5 years at most.
      0


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Those who voted "maybe a decade", what is your reasoning?

Although I would find it extremely hard to state a real timeframe by prognosis, I would say it is quite possible, even plausible, though certainly not a given, that the Fall of the United States as a civilization as we know it now could happen within your lifetime. Hell, it could still happen within mine. But I don't want to make prophecies with anything nearing specifics after excoriating @Wiw for being a fear-mongering false prophet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It could be a disgruntled employee, but we also need someone more trustworthy than Trump to deny this rumor. I don't think anyone can really trust him to speak honestly about anything that he thinks m

I'm saying 300 years because I can't see it falling in 100. I think by 500 we won't really have countries. We might have something similar to the Star Trek Federation or something --- a country basica

All countries rise and fall. We sometimes have a hard time appreciating this, even though geopolitical lines are continuously changing in other places around the world. How long do you give the United

As a country, I would imagine that it's most likely going to continue to exist for at least a hundred years (After that, it becomes hazier because of the possibility of technology or other advancements changing the world. )

The more interesting question is what form will it be?  Will it still be a Democratic Republic?  Will it still be a superpower? Etc.  I mean, Russia still exists, but the Russia of the 19th century was very different from the Russia of the 20th century which was very different from the current Russia (there's plenty of other countries that can be used as examples as well). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vcczar said:

Apparently, Trump seriously suggested that his own daughter be VP.

And ... Trump denies, as we might have predicted.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1310791096138706945?s=20

That's the problem with these sorts of books. Without some sort of comprehensive investigation into these claims, they come down to someone (often a disgruntled former employee) vs. Trump.

So who knows?

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Defiant said:

Will it still be a superpower?

Ya. It's difficult to stop the rise of Asia, based on population alone. China has ~4x the U.S.'s population. If they get to just half the economic wealth per person, they have twice as big of an economy. Just as the U.K. is now a secondary power (although still important), the U.S. will probably go the same route. Whether China has already surpassed the U.S., or will in 10 years, or 50, the demographics suggest it is highly likely to happen at some point in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

China? Ya, I'd say there's the U.S., then China. Russia is no longer a superpower (aka the Soviet Union), but a top secondary power.

Oh, I'd say Russia's still a superpower too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

And ... Trump denies, as we might have predicted.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1310791096138706945?s=20

That's the problem with these sorts of books. Without some sort of comprehensive investigation into these claims, they come down to someone (often a disgruntled former employee) vs. Trump.

So who knows?

It could be a disgruntled employee, but we also need someone more trustworthy than Trump to deny this rumor. I don't think anyone can really trust him to speak honestly about anything that he thinks makes him look bad. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Why? Small population compared to U.S. or China, middling economy, military only seems to be able to project power in own region.

They -- and specifically Putin -- are absolutely setting a goal of re-establishing themselves as a Superpower again.  This started under Obama (Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine/Crimea, Syria, the 2016 US election).  Trump thinks they're trying to help him so he has no interest in taking a stand against him.  He's too stupid to realize they support him because he's too incompetent to stop them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

They -- and specifically Putin -- are absolutely setting a goal of re-establishing themselves as a Superpower again.  This started under Obama (Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine/Crimea, Syria, the 2016 US election).  Trump thinks they're trying to help him so he has no interest in taking a stand against him.  He's too stupid to realize they support him because he's too incompetent to stop them. 

In the Next 100 Years, they predict that Russia will attempt once again to become a global superpower (and specifically predict the Crimean invasion years before it happened) -- but also predict that Russia eventually overexpands and crumbles once more.

The main competitors for global influence in the leadup to WW3 end up being the US, Japan, Turkey, and Poland.  (China is crushed by an economic collapse)

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Those who voted "maybe a decade", what is your reasoning?

I was one of those; I don't guarantee that it will happen in a decade, but I believe it to be possible.  More realistically, 25-50 years is my personal projection.

To keep it short :

1.) Societal rot

2.) No major external military threat to unify the nation around

3.) Highly partisan environment (if it continues)  divides the nation over that time

4.) Economic hardships following the increasing adoption of automation (a good example to show what I am talking about is how the Rust Belt has fared since the decline of the US manufacturing sector)

5.) Shrinking middle class; rich get richer, the poor get poorer

The classic formula for revolution is : economic hardship + controversial social issues.  As long as people have something to lose, most are not going to take up arms and risk destroying everything that they have ever worked for.  The minute all their luxuries are taken away, things will turn sour pretty quickly.  This may be a controversial point to add onto that list, but the demographics of the United States may make it likely that major civil unrest occurs in the coming decades.  It is likely that whites may become a minority within 50 years, and the paradigm of power will certainly shift then.  Multicultural nations have not worked out very well in history, it will be interesting to watch what happens in the US.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

They -- and specifically Putin -- are absolutely setting a goal of re-establishing themselves as a Superpower again.  This started under Obama (Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine/Crimea, Syria, the 2016 US election).  Trump thinks they're trying to help him so he has no interest in taking a stand against him.  He's too stupid to realize they support him because he's too incompetent to stop them. 

I disagree with you on this point, Russia is not trying to project it's influence on a superpower level at all.  For instance, there is hardly the level of Russian presence in Cuba that could be found in the days of the Soviet Union.  All of those conflicts have been defensive measures ensuring that NATO is unable to gain any more members situated along the Russian border.  With Crimea, the situation was a little different considering that the area is vital to maintaining control over the Black Sea.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

It is important to note that many in the Russian government feel betrayed by the United States since they seemingly were given assurances by NATO that there would be no expansion eastwards following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  They are simply doing what they need to in order to protect the integrity of their nation.

When it comes to Syria, they looked at the catastrophe that occurred in Libya and said that they were having none of it.  The biggest difference is that Gaddafi wasn't worth saving for them, no major Russian military presence in that country + them not being the best of friends anyways lead to him being expendable in their eyesight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

In the Next 100 Years, they predict that Russia will attempt once again to become a global superpower (and specifically predict the Crimean invasion years before it happened) -- but also predict that Russia eventually overexpands and crumbles once more.

The main competitors for global influence in the leadup to WW3 end up being the US, Japan, Turkey, and Poland.  (China is crushed by an economic collapse)

The book was also written before it was blatantly clear that the United States was tearing itself apart from within by deep, entrenched, vicious, hate-driven socio-political battlelines not seen to that extremity in the country since the 1840's-1860's, and the nation has lost most common and popular national unity on policy in almost everything, where gridlock, contrarian opposition or dissent simply on principle, and refusal to compromise are the words of the day in Washington, D.C. I think this really changes the whole narrative presented and it's perspective. Remember, the Roman Empire's demise began in internal politics and socio-cultural divide long before the Legions were defeated on the battlefield or Roman gold solidum ceased to be the dominant currency of trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

The book was also written before it was blatantly clear that the United States was tearing itself apart from within by deep, entrenched, vicious, hate-driven socio-political battlelines not seen to that extremity in the country since the 1840's-1860's, and the nation has lost most common and popular national unity on policy in almost everything, where gridlock, contrarian opposition or dissent simply on principle, and refusal to compromise are the words of the day in Washington, D.C. I think this really changes the whole narrative presented and it's perspective. Remember, the Roman Empire's demise began in internal politics and socio-cultural divide long before the Legions were defeated on the battlefield or Roman gold solidum ceased to be the dominant currency of trade.

Again, you’re basing your judgment of a book you haven’t read on what some people on the internet said about it.

If you can’t get the book, he does a great job of explaining his reasoning here:

https://youtu.be/zpAkT5YnpEA

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Again, you’re basing your judgment of a book you haven’t read on what some people on the internet said about it.

If you can’t get the book, he does a great job of explaining his reasoning here:

https://youtu.be/zpAkT5YnpEA

I'm basing my judgement, in this case, on the year the book was written and the seemingly unified national view on key policies, as was often seen from the start of the Cold War till 1998 (barring the Anti-Vietnam movement) that is strongly intimated by your descriptions, and the several book reviews I've found, to carry on in the book's narrative. I'm assuming nothing more and nothing deeper than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm basing my judgement, in this case, on the year the book was written and the seemingly unified national view on key policies, as was often seen from the start of the Cold War till 1998 (barring the Anti-Vietnam movement) that is strongly intimated by your descriptions, and the several book reviews I've found, to carry on in the book's narrative. I'm assuming nothing more and nothing deeper than that.

Fair enough, but the video gives detailed and reasonable explanations for why China and Russia are doomed to fail, and how this creates vacuums for Japan, Poland, and Turkey, in addition to the US.  The very first question in the video is about how America can possibly hold its position for 100 years (spoiler alert:  by having a larger economy; more natural resources, more available usable land, etc than the next x number of countries combined).

While the book was written during the early days of the Obama administration, it says up front that these things ebb and flow and no one President will dictate the next 100 years:  that applies to Trump as easily as it does to Obama.

Finally, while the book was written in 2008-2009, the video is from 2013.  Trump wasn’t President yet, but the backlash against Obama was well underway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, CPE said:

I disagree with you on this point, Russia is not trying to project it's influence on a superpower level at all.  For instance, there is hardly the level of Russian presence in Cuba that could be found in the days of the Soviet Union.  All of those conflicts have been defensive measures ensuring that NATO is unable to gain any more members situated along the Russian border.  With Crimea, the situation was a little different considering that the area is vital to maintaining control over the Black Sea.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

It is important to note that many in the Russian government feel betrayed by the United States since they seemingly were given assurances by NATO that there would be no expansion eastwards following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  They are simply doing what they need to in order to protect the integrity of their nation.

When it comes to Syria, they looked at the catastrophe that occurred in Libya and said that they were having none of it.  The biggest difference is that Gaddafi wasn't worth saving for them, no major Russian military presence in that country + them not being the best of friends anyways lead to him being expendable in their eyesight.

Sure.  And that’s almost exactly what the author says in the second video of the series I linked below.

Youre justifying why they are working to reassert themselves as a superpower.  That’s fine. But the fact remains that they are working to reassert themselves as a superpower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

The main competitors for global influence in the leadup to WW3 end up being the US, Japan, Turkey, and Poland.  (China is crushed by an economic collapse)

My 2 cents are not enough population in the last 3. Japan is a nation in managed decline. Turkey's birth rate has fallen below replacement. Poland is 40 million people (about the same as Canada). Sounds more realistic to say Canada could be a main competitor for global influence - but unlike Poland, Canada has immense natural resources and vast geography.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

My 2 cents are not enough population in the last 3. Japan is a nation in managed decline. Turkey's birth rate has fallen below replacement. Poland is 40 million people (about the same as Canada). Sounds more realistic to say Canada could be a main competitor for global influence - but unlike Poland, Canada has immense natural resources and vast geography.

But not vast usable geography, no opportunities to physically expand, and no desire.

 

and most importantly, an economy that is not even close.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CPE said:

It is likely that whites may become a minority within 50 years

Seems to me almost certain. It is already the case with new cohorts. What plausible mechanism could change the demographic trajectory the U.S. is on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

(spoiler alert:  by having a larger economy; more natural resources, more available usable land, etc than the next x number of countries combined).

Just pointing out that all of these factors being in place didn't keep the British Empire "Ruling the Waves Under Pax Brittanica," longer than it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...